Plan twice, shoot once.

NATO is not the Neutral Atlantic Treaty Organization

By Jay Holmes

NATO, the dream child of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill, came into existence after WWII for the express purpose of forming an alliance for the mutual defense of its members. The original motive was to defend against any invasion from the USSR. After the fall of the USSR and its reorganization into the spookocracy that is modern Russia, NATO continues to defend the interests of its members. While in theory NATO performs a number of diplomatic services, it is, in reality, a military organization. NATO was never designed to be neutral. It exists on behalf of its members. NATO is the Department of Whoops! Neutrality Isn’t Working.

This week a very “special” person, Libya Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim has made the claim that NATO is “siding with the rebels”. (Please insert the sounds of a large, shocked theater audience here.) Apparently, Khaled Kaim, a.k.a. Stupid, thinks that dressing like a European or North American politician means there is actually a 30% chance that anyone outside of his mother’s knitting circle will take him seriously whenever he steps up to a microphone.

War is a sad business. Regardless of where they live on the Libyan map, it is a tragedy that children are suffering and dying in this conflict—a conflict that Khaled and his bloodsucking pals worked hard to help create. It takes a truly “special” individual to provide humor in the midst of the tragedy in Libya.

Congratulations Khaled, you have accomplished your purpose in life. You made me laugh. You may now die in peace at the time of your choosing or whenever you should decide to step into the kill zone of the next unfair and politically prejudiced NATO bomb. I’m sure that NATO would be willing to help you out by sending an extra one for you if you like. In response to your concerns, I will ask NATO to please print a warning label with an appropriate disclaimer of impartiality on each bomb just to clarify things for anyone not yet clear on the concept of “bomb.”

Apparently, NATO used some of its usual devious tactics to confuse poor Khaled. The US and UK must have equipped those 124 Tomahawk cruise missiles with special Hollywood Model Silencers on their 1000 pound warheads. I can only guess that those silencers looked like giant water bottles. What a dirty trick! Khaled and his pals never even heard the missiles explode. NATO is so sneaky sometimes. Who would have guessed that anyone in the world was taking the side of Saint Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents? I can’t quite get over the shock of this recently uncovered plot.

Thanks for helping us out Khaled. I am nominating you for an Honorary Doctorate in Philosophy from the International Academy for Antisocial Pathologies. If you are selected for the honor, your diploma will be delivered by our special Drone Delivery Service.


12 thoughts on “ NATO is not the Neutral Atlantic Treaty Organization

  1. on ,
    Melissa said:


    Too bad Katie Couric et. al. can’t explain foreign policy so succinctly.

  2. I really like this breakdown. I am going to have to borrow this line: “NATO is the Department of Whoops! Neutrality Isn’t Working.”
    Very funny!

  3. on ,
    J Holmes said:


    Hi Clay. What is your take on NATO’s handeling of Libya?

  4. on ,
    Dave said:


    I am so disillusioned. NATO isn’t neutral? My world has been turned upside down.

    • on ,
      J Holmes said:


      Thanks, you now have something in common with Kaim. You made me laugh. Unlike Kaim you have value beyond that, so don’t die yet.

      JH

    • Bayard: Well, while it’s a nice idea, it’s a false assumption that the world wants to find peace. If the world wanted to find peace, there would be no Hitlers, Stalins, or jihadis. Those were not created by NATO, nor were they created by the US. Tibet thought the world wanted to find peace, and the only thing it found was China. But please don’t get me wrong. I really, really wish the world did want to find peace. Unfortunately, too many cultures believe that peace involves legally supported misogyny, child abuse, pedophilia, and blowing up their neighbors. Until the world wants a peace that does not involve those things, I, for one, am glad we have NATO. Thanks for stopping by. I know I’m speaking for Holmes, too, when I say how much we sincerely appreciate your support.

    • on ,
      JHolmes said:


      Hi Marilag,

      I support your sentiment. Unfortunately, you and I are too few in number to guarantee peace. I am not sure at what ratio of Marilags toAl-Qaedas military forces will become redundant. We have not had that experience yet in our human history. As an incurable (but experienced) optimist I do believe that humans are slowly becoming less aggressive but we have a long way to go.

      What we have had is a reduction in aggressive behavior in a minority of nations, while a few aggressive nations are increasing their capacity to kill. Now that China embraced capitalism (in its most despicable, anti-social forms) it is building a larger and more modern military. North Korea is continuing its development of missiles and nuclear warheads, and its military growth is hampered only by its highly limited ability to operate a government or create an economy. The Russians have steadily increased their defense spending over the last five years. Venezuela has waged a worldwide propaganda campaign to try to hide the fact that it has now outstripped Iran in military spending. Hugo Chavez has, on several occasions, publicly stated that he intends to carry forward Fidel Castro’s failed dreams of regional communism under the “leadership” of Venezuela. Hugo is now slightly more careful what he says in public, but his actions as Venezuela’s “president for life” indicate that he is preparing for war as quickly as his petroleum income will allow.

      You are not alone in your view, and many taxpayers in Europe have strongly opposed defense funding in European nations. You will be happy to know that defense spending by NATO member nations, as measured by percentage of Gross Domestic Product, is at its lowest levels since WWII.

      As to whether or not there should even be a NATO, the question remains an ongoing debate in Europe. Given the growth in number and capacity of Islamic terrorists, along with Iran’s stated intention to annihilate Israel and to pursue forced Islamic theocracy on the entire world, not everyone in Europe and the north Atlantic agrees that unilateral disarmament is a safe thing to do yet.

      When there is no aggression, there will be no need for defense. I look forward to that day.

      Thanks for being a voice for peace,

      JH

    • Piper, history had painted these men as “evil”. However, I believe that if we do what we can to help the people in other lands meet their needs while taking a nonviolent stance, it would eventually lead to world peace. World peace can only be achieved if we focus on peace rather than on not being violent.

      Holmes, it scares me to think that these other countries are building these weapons. The human race would be better if we get rid of them but unfortunately, some countries would rather choose power over peace.

  5. Pingback: Libya and Middle East Update, May 1, 2011 « Author Piper Bayard

  6. Pingback: Pakistan: The Push-Me, Pull-You Beast of the East–Timeline, Part I « Author Piper Bayard

Leave a Reply


Return to Top
%d bloggers like this: